A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Rationale for update to the IPv6 flow label
specification
Author(s) : Shane Amante
Hi,
The RFC3697bis draft has been updated again, principally to resolve
the remaining points raised by Thomas Narten and the point raised
by Ran Atkinson. The rationale draft (draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update)
has been updated to keep it in step (for example, some additional
references for firewal
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Flow Label Specification
Author(s) : Shane Amante
Brian Carpenter
On 5/12/2011 3:22 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Mark Smith wrote:
I think it would be reasonable to make DHCP a SHOULD, however
I've thought that one of the reasons SLAAC exists is to provide
simpler and lighter weight address configuration method for resource
constrained end-nodes such as embe
Mark Smith wrote:
> I think it would be reasonable to make DHCP a SHOULD, however
> I've thought that one of the reasons SLAAC exists is to provide
> simpler and lighter weight address configuration method for resource
> constrained end-nodes such as embedded ones. So perhaps it could be
> worth m
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:23:20 -0400
Thomas Narten wrote:
> Ole,
>
> Getting back to some of your other points...
>
> Ole Troan writes:
> > >> * RFC2675: I would just remove that.
> > >
>
> However, I do not see evidence that the WG has changed its thinking
> and would now be wil
On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:20:30 +0200
Ole Troan wrote:
> >> To put it another way, if we think there is a good use case for this
> >> as Ole describes, we will be doing a service to the devices that
> >> don't have their IPv6 code yet, to make it a SHOULD so they are
> >> more likely to implement it
On 2011-05-13 01:23, Thomas Narten wrote:
...
> I personally would support having DHCP be a SHOULD rather than a
> MAY. The justification in my mind is that if you want the network
> operator to have the choice of whether they want to use Stateless
> addrconf OR DHCP, they only have that choice of
Ran,
On May 12, 2011, at 7:55 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
> On Friday 6th May 2011, Ole Troan wrote in part:
>> basically I want the document to say that IETF has standardised
>> two mechanisms to configure hosts. one using ND and one using DHCP.
>> As they apply to different management models, nodes
> I personally would support having DHCP be a SHOULD rather than a
> MAY.
thank you
randy
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
---
On Friday 6th May 2011, Ole Troan wrote in part:
> basically I want the document to say that IETF has standardised
> two mechanisms to configure hosts. one using ND and one using DHCP.
> As they apply to different management models, nodes SHOULD implement both.
On 12th May 2011, Thomas Narten res
Ole,
Getting back to some of your other points...
Ole Troan writes:
> >> * RFC2675: I would just remove that.
> >
> > The docuent currently says:
> >
> > IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported.
> >
> > How about I replace that with:
> >
> > IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] are an opti
>> To put it another way, if we think there is a good use case for this
>> as Ole describes, we will be doing a service to the devices that
>> don't have their IPv6 code yet, to make it a SHOULD so they are
>> more likely to implement it.
>
> Here is some proposed text:
>
> 5.3. Default Router
> To put it another way, if we think there is a good use case for this
> as Ole describes, we will be doing a service to the devices that
> don't have their IPv6 code yet, to make it a SHOULD so they are
> more likely to implement it.
Here is some proposed text:
5.3. Default Router Prefere
14 matches
Mail list logo
